Sedonans: Want to Pay For The Liabilities of West Sedona’s SR89A?

ADOT just sent Mayor Rob Adams a letter regarding the lighting of West Sedona’s SR89A…

…this one is from Director John S. Halikowski.

Links to articles referred to by ADOT’s Director:  Sedona.biz & SedonaTimes (note Sedona Times did not use the logo).

Link to related SR 89A article:  Red Rock News,

The question for Sedonans is whether or not they want to own SR89A.

Do we want to become the sole party responsible for the maintenance of a road?

…the sole party responsible for defending against lawsuits due to accidents?

…the entity with sole responsibility to pay for medians, barriers, and lighting?

Sedona does own part of SR89A in Uptown, an agreement that came about during the Uptown Enhancement Project.  Do Sedonans want more maintenance and liability of SR89A?  We understand that the City is already working on cost projections should ADOT become tired of defending their position to use continuous lighting along West Sedona’s SR89A and decides to move on to door number 2.

We hear the “no continuous lighting” people also telling us we have no money…  How will they pay for medians, barriers, etc.?  Maybe it’s time for the public to ask how the naysayers expect to pay for their alternatives to the continuous lighting offered by ADOT at little cost to Sedona.  This letter makes it definitive that we are at the crossroads.

“…you, too, can own a highway…”  

Have a beautiful Sedona day!

SedonaFacts

ADOT’s Letter to Sedona City Council…April 12, 2008

Sedona Facts

Follow-Up on Panel Recommendations to City of Sedona on SR89A Lighting…

This Memo explains the lighting panel’s inability to decide on a plan… remember that Cliff Oshcer had resigned in June… this is now August.

The issue still appears to be:

1. liability on SR89A
2. who can pay for what
3. time for implementation

Have a dry, warm day… indoors

SedonaFacts

SR89A Pedestrian Safety Committee Panel Options…June 2008

Much misinformation is being stated by some candidates and some members of  Sedona’s Community about the history of the SR89A lights.

Perhaps this memo from then-City-Manager, Eric Levitt will help dispel many rumors and candidate quotes:

Notice in #6 that Cliff Oshcer did NOT agree with the panel recommendation prior to the final draft and as noted further down, resigned from the committee before the final draft. SedonaFacts asks the question: Did Mr. Oshcer have an interest other than for the City of Sedona by his participation on the Safety Committee Panel?  Mr. Oshcer has also “resigned” from IDSA, 2 days after a lengthy  article in a local newspaper about he being the president of the local section of IDSA and that no Dark Sky designation could be granted without the section approval …Why be so certain that Sedona could not do Dark Sky without him on one day, and resign 2 days later?  Is it possible that Mr. Oshcer may have overstated his importance? Is it also possible that Mr. Oshcer resigned for reasons OTHER than to devote his time to helping certain candidates get elected to the City Council or position of Mayor? 2 days…  Did Mr. Oshcer speak for IDA?…or himself as the owner of Evening Sky Tours?

Ask Mr. Ochser why he resigned…

——————————————————————————————————————————————————————-

This is part of the email from John Harper, ADOT, to the City of Sedona in response to the City’s letter:

“…A smaller section of SR89A will have continuous lighting.  This lighting will be associated with the traffic signal which will be installed at Andante.  The remainder of SR89A in West Sedona in the study area, on either side of this lighted section, will be subject to the installation of a median, median barrier or pedestrian barriers.  These will be specifically designed to channelize pedestrians to organized crossings, which will be signalized, marked, and lighted.

ADOt is agreeing to this compromise solution only if the median and pedestrian barriers are included for the remainer of the study area…”

——————————————————————————————————————————————————————-

Sedona does not have funds to build medians, etc.  The same people who don’t want lights made it abundantly clear at the KSB candidate forum that the City of Sedona was spending beyond its means and needed to live within a budget.

Have a beautiful Sedona day!

SedonaFacts

Email to City of Sedona from the International Dark Sky Association…

(Note:  The membership link at the end of this email has been fixed.)

While SedonaFacts does not publish comments, unless they are comments that cite verifiable information, we do read the comments and make a concerted effort to address issues that many Sedonans find confusing…such as information about the requirements of the International Dark Sky Association as it relates to any application by the City of Sedona.  Rumors have been heard about Sedona that the continuous lighting of SR89A by ADOT would keep Sedona from being able to apply for the “Dark Sky” designation. 

Timely is this email that was sent by IDSA to the City of Sedona, the Mayor, and the Councilors:

From: Kim Patten [mailto:Kim@darksky.org]
Sent: Friday, December 18, 2009 2:30 PM
To: radams@sedonaaz.gov; pcolquitt@sedonaaz.gov; mdinunzio@sedonaaz.gov; chamilton@sedonaaz.gov; nscagnelli@sedonaaz.gov; jfrey@sedonaaz.gov; dsurber@sedonaaz.gov; AWelsh@SedonaAZ.gov; AZelms@SedonaAZ.gov; CCARC@SedonaAZ.gov; TErnster@SedonaAZ.gov
Subject: International Dark Sky Community

 Dear Mayor and Council of the City of Sedona,

It has come to our attention that the debate over the lighting of State Route 89A is still under consideration by the Mayor and Council and that the concept of lighting this route may compromise the City of Sedona’s ability to become an International Dark Sky Community (IDSC) under the IDA certification process.  I hope with all sincerity that this letter will assist in the decision making process.

First, it is important to state that the designation of the IDSC is not wholly interrelated to this particular lighting process.  The requirements of the IDSC, which can be found on the Web site www.darksky.org/page/IDSPlaces, essentially mandate a comprehensive outdoor lighting code, examples of projects built under that code, retrofitting of grandfathered projects to meet the code, and a series of public participation programs to help educate the public on the values of environmentally responsible outdoor lighting practices.  From this brief description, I believe it is clear that quality lighting projects can actually enhance the community’s ability to successfully apply for the IDSC.

That being said, the community must also evaluate the necessity of the municipal lighting project, i.e. whether or not the outdoor lighting is warranted.  This is something that the IDSPlaces review committee cannot do as we do not have the appropriate knowledge of the particular communities, particularly on a project such as the lighting of SR 89A.  For example, it would be easy for the committee to evaluate a community as having too much outdoor lighting in general, such as over lighting of streets, parking lots, floodlighting, etc.; however, in general, if particular projects are validated by the City Council, and it is apparent that the lighting is warranted, again, that lighting project, if completed using dark sky friendly lights, may actually contribute to the communities ability to apply to the IDSC.

 

International Dark Sky Association

Any project approved by Mayor and Council should first and foremost be warranted.  This decision is one that only the city can make.  Secondly, the lighting project should be dark sky friendly.  That means that the fixtures selected should be full cutoff fixtures and using a lamp source that is 1) High Pressure Sodium or Low Pressure Sodium or 2) using a dimmable white light source limited in hours of use and dimmed at or near 11p.m. at the latest or 3) a hybrid white light/yellow light source where the amber source replaces the white light source at or near 11p.m. at the latest.  When using white light sources it is important that they can be dimmed at later hours, or switched to yellow/amber light sources at later hours to help conserve energy and reduce the skyglow.  Particularly with Sedona’s location near Flagstaff, Arizona and the multiple observatories of the area, it is important to note that blue-rich light sources contribute at a higher rate to skyglow and scatter.

I hope that this email answers any questions that you may have regarding the IDSC program in relation to the City of Sedona and the lighting of 89A.  At this time it is important to remind you that we cannot determine the appropriate lighting levels for your community or where you use light at night; however, we encourage you that if you do choose to light a project, you do so in an environmentally sensitive manor.

If I can answer any additional questions for you, please do not hesitate to contact me directly.

Thank you for your time and Happy Holidays.

Best,

Kim Patten, Programs Director & Public Affairs International Dark-Sky Association

kim@darksky.org     520-293-3198                               Join IDA today: www.darksky.org

 “To preserve and protect our nighttime environment and our heritage of dark skies through environmentally responsible outdoor lighting”

SedonaFacts is proud to give you a link to IDSA membership, which begins at $50.  We have perused the information on IDSA’s website and think you will agree with their concern for the environment. 

The email from Kim Patten has gone a long way to dispel misinformation.

KSB August 2009 Survey Numbers…

SedonaFacts is making an attempt to put information in perspective and in an earlier post, Keep Sedona Beautiful was questioned on the figure of “70%” of Sedonans being against the continuous lighting along SR89A.   Letters have been sent to ADOT quoting that figure.  SedonaFacts questioned the data.

SedonaFacts is in receipt of the August 2009 KSB newsletter.  This is the first bullet from the newsletter:

“…In a 10-day period, 49% of survey recipients (127 individuals) responded.”

“…Asked if they support ADOT plans to install continuous roadway lighting on SR89A, 98% said “no.”

Doing the math:

• Survey sent to 260 (.49% = 127.4)
• 124 against, 3 unknown position

Based on the 10,400 “full time residents” of Sedona as claimed by the City of Sedona’s website, the information would suggest that 1% of the residents are against the continuous lighting along SR89A.

Note:  KSB respondents may or may not live in Sedona.  The 1% figure is not a “real” percentage without knowing if all live within the confines of Sedona.

We do not have the survey information from Red Rock News or Sedona Times.  If anyone can provide us with that information, we will publish it.

Have a great Sedona day!

SedonaFacts

FUNDING FOR SR89A LIGHTS…

Much misinformation about the funding of the SR89A lights is making its way through newsletters, emails, and neighborhoods.

This letter to the City Council should go far into dispelling many of the rumors that the Federal Government has the authority to change the decision of ADOT.

 

 

The lights are being put in for safety.

The lights will be like those in Flagstaff = “Dark Sky” compliant.

Flagstaff is the only city in the US having a “Dark Sky” compliant designation.

ADOT Answers Sedona Request For Information

There was great concern about ADOT not having the funds to plow SR89A on “snow days”.  One concerned citizen asked a question of ADOT:

Your Input:  “…Will it be shoveled during “snow days”?
12/5/2009 11:58:26 AM

ADOT Response: Despite facing a $100 million budget deficit and recognizing the critical safety and economic concerns, ADOT will continue plowing snow at the same pace as last year. The budget deficit, created by $500 million in diverted transportation funds and declining revenue, has hit hard a variety of services like highway maintenance, which includes snowplowing. The state’s hiring freeze has left ADOT with too few qualified snowplow drivers and a depleted budget has left no money to replace snowplows, costing $250,000 each, and fewer dollars to buy materials. While keeping the interstates and primary highways open is the priority, ADOT is making further operational cuts and plans a one-time sale of several hundred fleet vehicles to support snowplowing and keep routes like US 180 north of Flagstaff and SR 89A in Sedona open like in previous years. Snow removal requires money for materials, equipment and people – all of which have been impacted by the shortfall.
12/8/2009 11:16:26 AM

Sedona is grateful to ADOT.

What is the basis for the “70%” of “residents” against SR89A lighting, as claimed by Keep Sedona Beautiful?

“…70% of the residents do not want…”  A statement that was made by Keep Sedona Beautiful in a recent newsletter (12/5/09).

Maybe yes, maybe no.  There has never been a full survey, vote, or count of the “yeas” or “nays” on the issue of the lighting of SR89A.

The City of Sedona puts the year-round residents of Sedona at 10,400.  70% of that figure would mean that 7,280 are against the lights.

Put another way, only 3,120 want the lights.

Or they are undecided.   Or both.

The figure of 70% is an unproven number.

If Keep Sedona Beautiful can prove their figures, we will be happy to post the information and cite their source.

NOTE:  At a recent KSB meeting, a member asked Steve DeVol for the source of the 70% of Sedonans being against the lights.  The response was that it came from a survey done by the Red Rock News.  We will contact the Red Rock News for the information about the survey and report back to all of you who want to know the facts.

We have sent an email to the Sedona Red Rock News letting them know that Steve DeVol used them as the source of the information.  We have asked for the following information:

 

 

Date of survey

Actual question asked

Number of respondents

 

Later…

It’s Official: ADOT Will Plow SR89A

After we reported to you that ADOT had tweeted us that SR89A would continue to be an ADOT priority during the next snow season, we received this press release from Pud Colquit, Sedona City Council Member:

Please send a “thank you” to ADOT.  On twitter:  @ArizonaDOT

We need to continue to work together.  ADOT is a partner with and for Sedona.